Community Government Police & Fire
Pierce County voters to decide whether sheriff should be appointed or elected
In the highest-profile proposed amendment produced by this year’s Pierce County Charter Review Commission, voters will decide how to select a sheriff.
Again.
Charter Amendment 53 would make the Pierce County sheriff an appointed, instead of elected, position. The amendment calls for the county executive to select a chief law enforcement officer, with approval by the county council.
Voters will also decide on six other proposed charter amendments in the Nov. 3 election, on subjects ranging from how often the county council meets to details of the budgeting process. But none of those other proposals drew even a fraction of the attention of the sheriff issue.
Charter review process
Pierce is one of seven “charter” counties in Washington state. Those seven — Pierce, King, Snohomish, Whatcom, Clallam, San Juan and Clark — approved charters (effectively a constitution for county government) to guide the structure of local government.
The Pierce County charter calls for voters to elect a board every 10 years to review the document. That board sends any proposed amendments to voters, who have final say on whether they are approved.
Martha Lantz, Justin Leighton and Brenda Lykins represented the Gig Harbor area on the 21-member Charter Review Commission this year.
When Pierce County voters approved the original charter in 1980, in the wake of an organized-crime scandal involving former Sheriff George Janovich of Gig Harbor, they made sheriff an appointed position. Then the 2006 Charter Review Commission proposed, and voters ratified, a return to an elected sheriff.
This year’s Charter Review Commission voted narrowly (12-9) to ask voters if the want a re-do.
King is the only of Washington’s 39 counties with an appointed sheriff.
Most American counties operate with an elected sheriff, according to Derek Young, the former Pierce County and Gig Harbor councilman who now works as executive director of the Washington Association of Counties. But appointed sheriffs are far from unheard of in more populous counties.
“It wouldn’t be out of the norm for Pierce County (to have an appointed sheriff) in terms of its peer counties,” Young said, adding that the Association of Counties has no position on the proposal.
Arguments against Amendment 53
Arguments for and against the amendment both touch on accountability.
Those favoring the proposal say it would increase accountability. The county executive and council could remove a sheriff immediately, without waiting for the next election.
Those opposing it say accountability belongs in the voters’ hands.
Electing the sheriff “brings accountability to the voter, rather than concentrating accountability and control in the council and the executive,” said Kristen Wynne, founder and chair of the Tacoma Business Council. Wynne and Young spoke during a League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County forum on charter amendments on Oct. 14.
Three high-ranking former county elected officials — former Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeier, former Sheriff Paul Pastor and former Pierce County and Washington state Auditor Brian Sonntag — wrote the statement opposing the amendment for the Pierce County voters guide. Gig Harbor Now was unable to reach them for an interview, but their statement said in part:
“The Sheriff should remain independent so law enforcement decisions are based on the law, public safety, and the needs of our community — not political pressure or changing priorities within county government.”
Arguments for Amendment 53
Supporters of the proposal argue that an appointed sheriff would “professionalize” the office. The pool of potential candidates would draw from the entire country, rather than just those registered to vote in Pierce County.
The last appointed sheriff was Pastor, who has a doctoral degree from Princeton. He would not have been eligible to become an elected Pierce County sheriff, since he did not live here at the time.
“We did it for 26 years and it was a really good example,” said Nathe Lawver of Tacoma, one of three authors of the pro-Amendment 53 statement in the voters guide. “Pierce County ended out on a high note with our final (appointed) sheriff. A law enforcement officer who has a Ph.D fromPrinceton? That’s a pretty cool thing. We haven’t seen that caliber of professionalism in the sheriff’s office.”
Pastor later won two terms as an elected sheriff and opposes Amendment 53.
Lyle Quasim, the chair of the Black Collective in Tacoma, worked as chief of staff to the Pierce County executive alongside sheriffs who were appointed and elected. Speaking at the League of Women Voters forum, he said both models can work.
Quasim pointed out that appointing a sheriff provides a much larger pool of candidates. He argued that it could be cheaper in the long run, too.
“Over the last five years, we’ve lost over $4 million in lawsuits” related to law enforcement, Quasim said. “Would that still have happened if the sheriff had been appointed? Who knows.”
Is it all about Keith Swank?
In addition to making sheriff an appointed position, Charter Amendment 53 would remove the incumbent effective Jan. 1, 2027.
Sheriff Keith Swank has framed the issue as an effort to oust him from office. In testimony in March, he said some members of the Charter Review Commission “want to cancel me. How very undemocratic.”
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank
Swank has had a highly tumultuous term since taking office last year. He has come under fire for controversial social media posts, been accused of threatening lawmakers and was the subject of complaints to the Washington State Criminal Justice Commission.
Wynne, at the LWV forum, said voters chose Swank and that choice should be respected.
“It’s really important for people to keep in mind that … if you vote in favor of this, you are not only choosing an appointed sheriff. You are terminating, two years early, the term in office of an elected sheriff,” Wynne said.
“Whether you voted for him or you didn’t, we believe in the democratic process. (The Charter Review Commission) put two issues into one amendment. They could have just put before voters, should we have an appointed sheriff?”
Proponents of the amendment counter that the same voters who elected Swank would be removing him if they approve Charter Amendment 53.
And Swank could remain sheriff, if the executive and council pick him.
“When this passes, he can apply to be the sheriff just like any other law enforcement professional,” Lawver said. “He’s got the same opportunity.”
Other charter proposals
These charter proposals will also appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Charter Amendment 52
This amendment would require the Pierce County Council to meet at least 45 times during the calendar year, instead of the current requirement of at least once in each of 50 weeks.
Charter Amendment 54
The amendment would “create a new executive department of Public Safety Ombuds to provide independent oversight of the Sheriff and Sheriff’s Office employees. Subject to limitations imposed by law, the Ombuds shall have authority and resources to monitor all matters involving the Sheriff’s Office.”
Charter Amendment 55
If approved, county initiative sponsors would have 180 days to collect initiative signatures, instead of the current 120 days.
Charter Amendment 56
The amendment would require the county’s chief financial officer to prepare a four-year budget outlook for the next and succeeding biennial budgets.
Charter Amendment 57
This amendment would expand the definition of classes already protected from discrimination under the Pierce County Charter.
Charter Amendment 58
The amendment would create a Juvenile Detention Advocate Office to respond to complaints and monitor conditions in Pierce County Juvenile Detention.